Masks: Cochrane says "oops sorry".

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eddy Edson

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
"Masks don't work" was always either dumb or intentionally misleading as a take-away from the mask review, but now Cochrane admits it could have done things better ...


Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.

The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.

The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that 'We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.' This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.
 
They still don't "work" .. it says so on the box.
 
It seems to be saying on the box "we don't know if they work because people weren't actually wearing them when they were supposed to be for the study"
 
There was no chance of them working if people didn't wear them properly and I certainly observed plenty of that. Over the mouth but not the nose, round the neck, with a hole in and a cigarette poking out, yes I actually saw that.
 
"Masks don't work" was always either dumb or intentionally misleading as a take-away from the mask review, but now Cochrane admits it could have done things better ...


Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.

The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.

The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that 'We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.' This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.
This is what the W.H.O said about masks in their public health measures pandemic preparedness guide pg 14 for influenza (yes @Bruce Stephens not covid19, but another respiratory virus) in March 2019.

Although they "recommended" the public wearing them, the evidence wasn't there as they state below. So YES they were being recommended, but there was NO evidence they worked and the new Cochrane review is hardly conclusive either.

"Face masks worn by asymptomatic people are conditionally recommended in severe epidemics or pandemics, to reduce transmission in the community. Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure."

"A disposable surgical mask is recommended to be worn at all times by symptomatic individuals when in contact with other individuals. Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure."

This is what Trisha Greenhalgh and colleagues said in the BMJ in April 2020.

A precautionary intervention based on.

“a strategy for approaching issues of potential harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.”

"This raises an ethical question: should policy makers apply the precautionary principle now and encourage people to wear face masks on the grounds that we have little to lose and potentially something to gain from this measure?"


Now; to be clear, i'm not against people wearing masks, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't wear them either. I am just stating what the W.H.O and our Trisha Greenhalgh have said regarding respiratory pandemics. This isn't my opnion, so I don't need to be challenged on this, this is fact and on record. If anybody has an issue with this, please take it up with them.
 

Attachments

Thankfully they do work otherwise all those courageous health workers on frontline would have come down with virus.

Still amazed at how flu was nearly absent during covid measures, although reluctant at first didn't mind wearing mask.
 
"Masks don't work" was always either dumb or intentionally misleading as a take-away from the mask review, but now Cochrane admits it could have done things better ...


Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.

The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.

The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that 'We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.' This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.
There was debate on Tv about this the other night. A Professor said simply good quality masks fitted correctly do work. She slapped down a rent-a-gob who was saying they don't work.
 
good quality masks fitted correctly do work
At least she didn't say a cloth face covering made from an old T-shirt was in any way effective.. unlike the government advice at the time...

And I'm fairly sure there would be other Professors who would say that they're completely ineffective so...
 
There was debate on Tv about this the other night. A Professor said simply good quality masks fitted correctly do work. She slapped down a rent-a-gob who was saying they don't work.
It seems daft to question that. There's a genuine question about whether (for example) asking the public to wear masks on public transport will work. Most of the available trials were done pre-pandemic and I think it's entirely possible that advice might fail to work during an average flu season even if it would be useful early in a pandemic.

Similarly (as @bulkbiker noted) it seems quite possible that recommending (and perhaps providing) different qualities of masks might change things. (And that might be true even if most of us aren't very careful about correct fitting of masks.)
 
These studies were published after the WHO's comments about influenza in 2019, and were based on various comparisons between US states where masks were and weren't mandated.

Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With and Without a Mask Mandate - Kansas, June 1-August 23, 2020 - PubMed
Study of masks in Kansas - “COVID-19 incidence (calculated as the 7-day rolling average number of new daily cases per 100,000 population) decreased (mean decrease of 0.08 cases per 100,000 per day; net decrease of 6%) among counties with a mask mandate (mandated counties) but continued to increase (mean increase of 0.11 cases per 100,000 per day; net increase of 100%) among counties without a mask mandate (nonmandated counties).”

Decline in COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates Associated with Statewide Mask Mandates - 10 States, March-October 2020 - PubMed
Statewide mask mandates in 10 states - “Regression analysis demonstrated that weekly hospitalization growth rates declined by 2.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3-5.5) among adults aged 40-64 years during the first 2 weeks after implementing statewide mask mandates.”

Evaluating the effectiveness of countywide mask mandates at reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection in the United States - PubMed
Evaluating the effectiveness of countywide mask mandates in the US - “These data showed statistically significant lower averages of SARS-CoV-2 daily infection in counties that passed mask mandates when compared with counties that did not. The difference-in-difference analysis revealed a 16.9% reduction in predicted COVID-19 cases at the end of 30 days.”

The Burden of Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Cases, Hospitalizations, and Mortality Based on Vaccination Status and Mandated Mask Use: Statewide Data From Wisconsin and Narrative Review of the Literature - PubMed
Vaccination status and mask mandates in Wisconsin - “Strict adherence to public mask use and fully vaccinated status are associated with improved COVID-19-related outcomes and can mitigate the spread, morbidity, and mortality of COVID-19.”

Trish Greenhalgh from what I've read, is a pretty strong advocate of mask wearing as a helpful precaution against Sars Cov 2 transmission. It seem to me that she and other were trying to cut to the chase, and not delay implementation of instructions to wear masks in 2020 while the pandemic was unfolding?

"This raises an ethical question: should policy makers apply the precautionary principle now and encourage people to wear face masks on the grounds that we have little to lose and potentially something to gain from this measure?"
 
Trish Greenhalgh from what I've read, is a pretty strong advocate of mask wearing as a helpful precaution against Sars Cov 2 transmission.
She's a mask authoritarian including wearing a panty liner underneath it, crackers!
She admitted in one of her early papers that there was no evidence in support of mask wearing and that it was an experiment in social conditioning.
She's not a great example of someone with an open mind.
Or someone who supports the scientific principle.
if we followed her line of reasoning we wouldn't be allowed out of the house "in case something nasty happened" .. Oh wait!
 
Last edited:
Don't the links above provide emerging evidence though? Observations undertaken during the pandemic that suggest the positive effect in places that mandated mask wearing vs those that didn't.

Personally I really don't see this as a live issue at the moment. I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. On a Diabetes support forum.

Cochrane released a review. Recognised that it was being misinterpreted, and issued a correction.
 
Last edited:
Trish Greenhalgh from what I've read, is a pretty strong advocate of mask wearing
Yes, along with others, yet they all say the same thing, no evidence they work.

Recommending is not the same as saying something works.

Some doctors might recommend ivermectin, but does this mean it works?

Some doctors may not recommend metformin, but does that mean it doesn't work?

Mike, please don't lock or delete this thread, we are all adults here and as long as the discussion is civilised then no reason to lock it again.
 
no evidence they work.

And no definitive evidence that they don’t work.

Inconclusive is not an indication in either direction.

Plus again - the studies above that showed an association between mask wearing US states and reduced transmission rates.
 
And no definitive evidence that they don’t work.

Inconclusive is not an indication in either direction.

Plus again - the studies above that showed an association between mask wearing US states and reduced transmission rates.
It's not just the masks either.

Do you remember when they brought in screens in bars and restaurants.

 
Personally I really don't see this as a live issue at the moment. I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.
I'll attempt to answer that one for you.

The attempts to manipulate the general population using fear and what some have called "the science" (an incredibly unscientific concept) have revealed that many people are more aligned with their salaries than the truth.

Once this simple observation has been made it casts doubt on many "givens" that we have come to accept in the past.

Things like this


Who can we trust?

The WHO itself flip flopped on the benefits of masking in the early days of the pandemic as did Fauci and Whitty.

The lab leak theory was stifled yet now seems to be becoming more accepted.

We the general population have been lied to and mislead. Who or what can we trust on diabetes?

Many doctors seem woefully ignorant about possible non medication treatments for T2 yet we are expected to do what they tell us.

I was already a sceptic pre covid and now I'm even more sure that I took the correct position.

This post from another forum I belong to sums it up more eloquently than I have maybe..

Screenshot 2023-03-12 at 09.55.41.png
 
As someone who worked in a supermarket throughout all "lockdowns", I wouldn't say masks gave us peace of mind but they certainly eased the worry.. Have to have close contact with lots of people 5 days a week, whilst being told there was a virus killing thousands daily, was NOT good for metal health!
 
Japan, as a country, has a culture of wearing masks if you have a cold so it was never an alien thing for them. At least 95% of people are still wearing them (check out any of the 100s of 'walking around Tokyo' videos on YouTube). Out of a population of c. 125 million people, they've had (so far) 73,156 deaths (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/), compare that with the UK population of 68 million and deaths of 207,695 (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/). Masks work if everyone wears them properly and consistently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top